Posts Tagged ‘New Hampshire’

Lose all your Guns before 2035 under the Amnesty Bill before the Senate

June 9, 2013
We’ve written you before about the immigration amnesty bill that will be debated on the Senate floor beginning June 10.
We had just been through a hard fight to stop gun bans and registration.  And some of you may have even felt the immigration amnesty was not a “gun” issue.
But if the amnesty bill is passed, within 20 years, Washington could be as anti-gun as Albany, Hartford, and Sacramento.
This is because the bill will create at least 11,500,000 new citizens — but probably closer to 20,000,000 — and, if history is any guide, they will vote 71% of the time for far Left Democrats like Barack Obama.
Impartial analysts have determined that Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and probably Arizona will never vote for Republicans again. Given this, for the rest of your life, the White House will be occupied by someone who is just as anti-gun and just as liberal as Barack Obama.
Conservatives in the Senate think that they can woo new immigrants to their side of the aisle. But it is informative that, after the last amnesty bill (the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill signed by Ronald Reagan), those people given citizenship were LESS LIKELY to vote for more conservative and constitutional candidates.
Currently, the two political parties nationally, stand in a delicate political balance. Mitt Romney lost the presidency by 334,000 votes in four states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire).
So if you add a net gain of almost 8.5 million Obama voters to the electorate, the same amnesty that turned California “blue” will probably turn the whole country anti-gun as well.
Already, the calls for gun confiscation in “blue” and “purple” states are growing louder and louder:
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that “confiscation could be an option” after the Sandy Hook shooting;
  • Likewise, an Iowa legislator said that we need to “start taking” guns from law-abiding gun owners;
  • This year, legislation in both Minnesota and Missouri would have (if enacted) forced residents to cough up their high-capacity magazines and many of their semi-automatic firearms;
  • And legislators in New Jersey were recently caught on an open microphone saying that “we needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
By 2035, the battle will no longer be about stopping the expansion of background checks.  Most likely, it will be about stopping the government from coming to take your guns away. And there is nothing we will be able to do about it.
ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and urge them to vote against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.

‘Truth Teams’..?

February 13, 2012

Well, as expected the obamanites are getting set for more distortion and lies.

The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a “grassroots communications team” they’re calling the Truth Team.

“The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives,” the campaign said in a statement.

The teams will be first launched in 13 “swing states,” including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

The rollout also includes a social media blitz, directing supporters to three new websites:, which highlights Obama’s record and “promises kept”;, which highlights GOP policy positions; and, which fact-checks claims made against Obama on the campaign trail.


However, as always, the devils are in the details…

Media Matters War on America Exposed: Madness, White House Collusion, Media Coordination and Cooperation

Finally, the opening salvo has been fired against one of the most lethal weapons in the information war against America. Media Matters for America (MMFA), malevolent media mother-ship of the uber left, has been exposed in an ongoing investigation by the Daily Caller. This left-wing media machine of destruction has generated a dossier of lies, libels and defamation on every effective voice on the right. The Geller dossier is seven pages long listing their fallacious links (go here). When Media Matters issued a Memo to media: Pamela Geller does not belong on national television, Chris Matthews canceled me that day. And CNN, MSNBC, HLN, etc. never had me on again. America, the prohibition of the truth is being rigorously enforced. The destroyers successfully got Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Imus off the air. And they are working tightly with the White House. Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda was amateurish next to these destroyers. They are dismantling this country, ruining (and removing) people without so much as firing a shot.

The Daily Caller obtained a detailed organizational planning memo describing the great extent achieved of MMFA’s central goal of influencing the national media. Media Matters will spend $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage. Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

Anti-gun hypocrite and nutty head of the malevolent mother-ship, David Brock, broke DC gun laws. His constant heavy security detail was always packing serious heat. Brock’s paranoia and irrational fear of assassins are a manifestation of his long history of mental illness. And this loon traffics in the marginalization and defamation of leading conservatives by calling them ….. loons. You can’t make this shiz up.

Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations Daily Caller, February 12, 2012

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

And MM had enormous power:

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.

Anyone who reads Smith knows what a tool he is. He pimps their talking points as if they were news.

Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

NEXT: Media Matters’ weekly call… with the White House

SOURCE: Atlas Shrugs for complete article


Election 2012: Which candidates really believe like those that send them to foggy bottom do?

January 8, 2012

We often see in candidates the populist notion, or action that shows them to be followers of the wind. Bill Clinton being the most famous of those that rule by polls. Polls can, and are twisted by those that put the damned things together. Like statistics, they can always be manipulated to show whatever bias the pollster wishes to convey to further their position. Be that the NRA (full disclosure I am a Life Member.) or NOW.

However, answering questioneres about a subject can provide insights into a candidate. What follows is from an email from a pro gun advocacy group, NAGR, with a link following so that you may join or donate to the cause should you choose to do so.

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days behind us, and with New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada choosing their Republican candidates soon, I wanted to write to you and give you a quick update on the NAGR Presidential Survey program.

As you know, NAGR has mailed every candidate for President an official NAGR Gun Rights Survey.

Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate who has returned his survey 100% in favor of gun rights.

Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve asked you to call the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to demand that each candidate return their gun rights survey 100% in favor of the Second Amendment.

Believe me, your calls worked. Repesentatives from each of those campaigns called NAGR offices, demanded we instruct our members and supporters to stop calling and to send them a survey.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were hurt severely in Iowa because they stonewalled gun owners by refusing to return their surveys, and I think the longer that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney ignore gun owners, the more it will hurt them as well.

Each candidate has the NAGR Presidential Survey in hand. However, we didn’t stop the calls, and we won’t. Each of the remaining candidates needs to know that gun owners have a powerful voice and we will assume that silence is a sign that they are hiding an anti-gun position.

I have serious concerns about Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. It’s their records that worry me.

Let me take a minute or two right now to remind you about the positions of the four Presidential candidates who have so far refused to return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

Mitt Romney:

So far Mitt Romney has refused to respond to his NAGR gun rights survey, perhaps because when Mitt Romney was Governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts he signed a bill to ban an entire class of firearms.

Would he do the same thing — or even worse — as President of the United States? His record indicates that he would.

Mitt Romney supports the Brady Registration Act, mandatory 5-day waiting periods, mandatory firearms ID cards, the Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (so-called “assault weapons ban”) and he signed the Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban in 2004.

He even went as far as to say that he supported Massachusetts’ tough anti-gun laws: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them… I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

And to throw fuel on top of Mitt Romney’s anti-gun fire, he received the endorsement of John McCain this week, who himself has recorded promotional commercials for anti-gun groups hell-bent on restricting our Second Amendment rights.

Rick Santorum:

If you’ve watched any of the Presidential debates, you’ve noticed that Rick Santorum claims time and again to be a “fighter” who has “led on conservative issues.”

Rick Santorum’s record on the Second Amendment, however, tells a different story.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

In 2000, Santorum voted to force pawn shops to require a background check on anyone coming into the store to sell a firearm.

And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

It certainly appears that Rick Santorum has no regrets about his past anti-gun record. Worse, it appears he’d be happy to continue along this path as President.

Newt Gingrich:

For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.

Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”

Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .

But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.

Rick Perry:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.

His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.

Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.

George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.

First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.

Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.

It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.

Please keep up the pressure on these four Presidential candidates who continue to stonewall gun owners.

Give each campaign a call and demand the candidates return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once:

Mitt Romney: 857-288-3500

Rick Santorum: 603-518-5199

Newt Gingrich: 678-973-2306

Rick Perry: 855-887-5627

You and I know that we have the most anti-gun President in the history of our country right now in the Oval Office . . .

. . . but perhaps even more dangerous would be a Republican with a proven anti-gun history cutting backroom, anti-gun deals.

National Association for Gun Rights

%d bloggers like this: